For those interested in the study of groups, society, culture, social interactions, etc.

We ask that posts contain actual sociological content. We are happy to talk Sociology with anyone, but we're not here to pad your reading list or do your homework for you.

Questions about sociology should include your own attempt to answer the question either in the comments or the body text. Bring us something to play with, don't expect or ask the community to do all the thinking for you.

Not a sociologist? We welcome your participation, but users just making shit up or pushing an ideology may be banned to maintain the standards of discourse.

I'm curious as to how the majority of you redditologists perceive crime in relation to these theories. Does the majority really decide what becomes deviant, thus being signed into law? Or is it actually those in power who manipulate the system in their interest? There's plenty of evidence for either or, so what's your opinion?
I know this is fairly intro stuff, but it's still an interesting conversation nonetheless.

It is my belief that the two are nearly impossible to distinguish if you accept Gramsci's concept that the dominant bourgeoisie class is able to shape through positive and negative reinforcement a cultural hegemony that favors the interests of those in power. I think there is some evidence of laws that must have been established by the masses. However, I think if you analyze the laws of almost any society, you will see a pattern of harsh punishments against those who take direct steps to change the status quo. (E.G. theft, treason, or vagrancy an attempt to es hew the property aspect of capitalist existence)

I certainly have to agree. I'm currently sitting in my sociology class discussing this post while the rest of the class finishes the midterm. Gramsci's concept certainly plays a vital role in how this question is perceived, as does the fact that the "majority" that would define legal law is not numbers but political standing, which is once again those in power. White collar crime being a prime example of this where a CEO who embezzles millions from investors gets a slap on the wrist, while a lower class man who steals a purse gets 4 years in prison.

There is no such thing as "crime" septate from consensus. A crime is a concept allowed to be as-such by a society. Whether a society voted on it, or if someone in an influential position within that society inserted a specific course-of-action as a "crime", either way it's allowed by the society. If, the society puts up with it.

Crime does not exist in any other species other than our own. We as a society decide what a crime is based upon the prevailing system we (as a society) give consensus to. But, the "goal posts" of what defines a crime can be moved upon a people in a society based on the written word of an influential individual. It happens in court with lawyers all the time. The law man has "created" and continues to create isn't written in stone, and legal professionals constantly re-interpret "the law" successfully amongst judges and juries.

Our laws are arbitrary and merely human/societal constructs. It's easy to see that when you notice it's illegal to drive the wrong way down a "ONE WAY" street, yet police officers in squad cars do it constantly to uphold the law itself.

If "the law" can break "the law", then that law is arbitrary, and can be manipulated both by society, or an influential individual, unlike the law (theory) of gravity.